All language subtitles for Video_2024-02-28_12-00-42_EDIT

at the very beginning of this, to stay within the four walls of the laws as we have them today.

I've only asked for the laws to be upheld. If we have laws, if we have what we call fair play,

then let's actually play by the rules. The courts across the board made an unambiguous

declaration that we were in a public health emergency and that the World Health Organization and the CDC were the only

arbiters of what the facts were. And so you could not argue the facts.

Gates represents 88 percent of the donation to the World Health Organization from donor

organizations and agencies. By any definition, that's a controlling interest.

They had no problem going after osteopaths and chiropractors and people who were advocating for zinc or hydroxychloride, and they were shutting people down.

They were taking people's licenses. So the deceptive medical practices law was very much in play.

We will cite you and if we need to, we will arrest you and we will take you to jail.

So I think we're gonna get different pathogens.

We already said the NIFA craze that was going on in India and we've got a bunch of other toxins that are being discussed.

Apocalypses have been overrated every time they've been promoted. And by the way, human history is filled with apocalypse forecasts and they all suck.

We forget that we have a conscious role to play in this. And if we give the frequency of evil the carrier frequency on which it can transmit, guess what will be transmitted?

Evil.

We have done a terrible job as humanity in learning how to grieve and even a worst job in understanding how to grieve for people who have been cruel to us.

I had a very particularly interesting experience because in my family I have not only several public health, very senior people.

My oldest brother works at CDC and was one of the celebrated members of the Ebola team that went to, you know, Africa.

And what I found was that obviously I was on the wrong side of their existential view of things.

And my very outspoken position had led to an increased distance of an already broken family.

So I had a personal narrative which was I was trying to always be respectful of people that I do actually have a level of affection for even though our lives have gone very different directions.

And I tried to always measure how I spoke in a way that said if my brother at CDC listened to what I said, I know he would vigorously disagree with me, but I wonder if he could hear in my voice a fundamental respect for humanity.

That says we can have honest discourse, we can have honest disagreement and we can still arrive at a human response at the end.

And for me up until the rollout of the injection, that felt like a possible potentially attainable goal.

But when people were coerced, manipulated and lied to, to first get themselves injected and then have you can't come to the family reunion, you can't come to a wedding, you can't come to a school, you can't come to a whatever unless you have evidence of injection.

When coercion became part of the narrative, I lost my capacity to hold that equanimity because this went from an honest disagreement to murder.

And I had to do everything I could and I still do to restrain myself from the recognition that I had spent a year and a half before all this started, publicly trying to pump the brakes on the rollout of what was going to ultimately kill human beings.

And I was not only ridiculed for the positions that I took, but I lost an enormous amount of both business and social interactions because of it.

So for me it was a deeply personal thing. This was one of those things where I indicted my own performance for having failed to alert people at a level that would have gotten them to stop it before it happened.

And so if I were to say that I had a dark night of the soul moment, I would say that early, early in 21, going into the middle of 21, I was pretty upset that somehow or another there was indigestion.

Somehow or another there was an inadequacy in what I communicated or how I communicated it.

And I started doing a real deep examination of what had I done wrong.

Because I actually wanted to do something in a clear and compelling enough way, whether it was pandemic with Mickey Willis, whether it was the butterfly of the week, which is the show that Kim and I did, whether it was the Activate Humanity platform that I also did.

I wanted somehow to communicate to enough people, don't fall for it, don't let your family get injured by it, don't let your kids get injured by it, don't let all of these things happen.

And tragically, I found that there was no one.

Not on the liberty side, not on the alleged freedom opposition movement, and certainly nobody on the other side who was willing to even hold the dialogue that would say, hey, shouldn't we examine this?

And so what happened interestingly for me is that the entirety of 2021, I judged my contribution as largely a failure.

And that's a very egoic, personal, just, you know, reflective injury where I'm sitting there going, I didn't succeed in doing what I wanted to do.

And across 2021, I worked very hard to see if I could do something to change that trajectory for myself.

And so I laid out a series of legal arguments that ultimately were embraced by a group of attorneys in Idaho and in Louisiana, which gave rise to the first filing that ever was done to try to block the CMS mandate, the medical mandate that was associated with the injections.

And throughout the back end of 2021, going into the spring of 2022, I actually worked to prepare and ultimately file the first case in federal court about the illegality of the coercive mandate on the healthcare providers.

The Equal Opportunity Commission's opinion that said that employers were authorized to, in fact, coerce employees to do things is exactly the same thing that happened in the 1920s when the Nazi Party decided that it was employers who had to implement their programs

because they knew in Germany at the time the rules that they were making were actually illegal in Germany, but they could enforce it through organized labor and employment law.

And so the methodology, by the way, if you go back and look at the 1947 transcripts and the Nuremberg Trials, this is ripped right out of the pages.

I mean, it is unambiguous that this was a planned program that said we know what we're doing is a violation of constitutional rights and the Bill of Rights.

We know it's a violation of the law, but we're going to allow employers to be the implementation arm, which is the bookend to the Defense Department's rollout.

Because remember, ATI and ANSR, the companies that got the Operation Warp Speed contract, which, by the way, had to get independent JAG review, not once but twice, to make sure that if the Department of Defense was the agency through which all these things rolled out,

that there wouldn't ultimately be a liability that would flow back up to the Defense Department.

And those JAG reviews are a matter of public record, which was, in fact, at the time, U.S. Attorney General William Barr, kicking the can over to the Department of Defense.

The JAG attorneys reviewing on behalf of the Department of Defense a double opinion that allowed ATI as a contracting entity to essentially get a hard pass on any liability ultimately back to the Department of Defense.

If we look at these as bookends, right, you have the DOD on the one hand as the agent of distribution, and you have employers as the means by which that distribution happens, it's not surprising at all that the effectiveness was absolute.

Because now you have a military op on one side, and you have an authorized liability-proof distribution agency on the other side.

It was brilliantly executed, but it was absolutely criminal. So while the rest of what I'm going to call the Liberty Movement moved down the pathway of speaking about the violations of individual liberties,

and the violation of basic health provisions, and the violation of the patient-doctor relationship, and all the things which are actually correct in terms of the assessment of there was something wrong there,

I decided to swing the pendulum even further towards I'm going to stay absolutely laser focused on the criminality of what was happening.

And as I've said in numerous interviews, and as I continue to say, we have to go back to 1913 to understand this crime.

And specifically what we have to do is we have to look at the Rockefeller Foundation, and then a few years later the Wellcome Trust, which became the colluding parties that authorized the idea of allopathic medicine becoming the agency through which

behavior modification will be done through medicine. Remember that the Flexner report had come out, and it basically said that if you had another way of healing, other than the industrial pharmaceutical way of healing,

it was going to be deemed quackery, and we were going to throw it out the window. Shortly thereafter, you had the Wellcome Trust being set up, and if you look at the Wellcome Trust going into the Second World War,

it was very explicitly the commercial offense of the United Kingdom on the German pharmaceutical-chemical-industrial complex.

So to the point where if people want to, they can go back and they can look at literal battle plans, I don't mean metaphoric, actual battle plans drawn by the Wellcome Trust on how you invade Germany to take out the pharmaceutical manufacturers

and the chemical manufacturers of Germany. So when I say it was a battle, I'm not metaphoric in this. There's actually archived documents that show you that they had battle plans about how to take out the various, you know,

chloroquins and the various drugs for malaria, the aspirins, all kinds of things, and it's bizarre to look at this. Obviously, cocaine, one of the very major pieces of that pharmacopia back then,

which was an enormous part of the business of the pharmaceutical industries in the late 20s and early 30s. And so if we don't go back in time, we actually miss the point that the Rockefeller Foundation and the Wellcome Trust became the organizing entities,

which ultimately in 1947 put the World Health Organization on the map. But what's really interesting in that is in the charter of the UN-affiliated organizations for the World Health Organization,

they wrote into the charter the absolute liability shield from all criminal prosecution in perpetuity for any person associated with the World Health Organization and any of its activities, where it quite specifically goes down to the level of saying,

you cannot be prosecuted for any crime of any manner in any way as long as you do it under the umbrella of the World Health Organization. It's important to realize that when we talk about the World Health Organization,

we're not talking about an institution of the United Nations. We're talking about a criminal conspiracy that was put in place by two foundations who had a commercial interest in building a criminal liability shield for themselves.

That's what it is. Never was a health organization. It was a criminal organization. And by criminal, I literally mean that under the Clayton Act in the United States and under the Sherman Act in the United States and under the

Competitiveness Laws of Europe, what they did was a crime. They colluded, they price-fixed, they did all of the things which were antitrust violations, but put it under the umbrella of public health and everybody's supposed to go, oh, they're doing it for the good of humanity.

Except when you look at the actual financial statements of the World Health Organization, you find out that by 1950 and then again in 1955, the singular focus of the World Health Organization was, are you ready for this?

Vaccine promotion. We have the Director General of the World Health Organization going one step further and saying, and I'm quoting, this is about population control.

Now, what does that mean? That means that when we're taking orders from the World Health Organization, we're not. And fast forward to the Gates Foundation, which most people don't realize, was an undisclosed settlement between the U.S. Department of Justice and the Gates

Foundation, convicted felony antitrust violations. Right? This was not, there was an allegation Microsoft did bad things. This is a, they were convicted of antitrust crimes.

Quite mysteriously, the Gates Foundation just shows up and instantaneously starts laundering money into, are you ready for this? The World Health Organization.

Now, if you look at the financial statements beginning with the Gates Foundation, when it was established, you start seeing an anomaly.

It used to be that UN associated organizations and specifically the World Health Organization had two line items for most countries.

The country through an organization like the State Department or through a line item budget would allocate money to the World Health Organization.

And then there's the Corporation for the same country and there's another allocation coming from there. But with welcome trust, Rockefeller Foundation and Gates Foundation and the minor players like the Bloomberg Foundation and a couple others now,

but mostly the top three. Suddenly, we actually have the formation of what we called the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board. Well, who's sitting on that?

Dr. Elias from the Gates Foundation, Anthony Fauci from NIAID, you know, Jeremy Farr from the Welcome Trust. I mean, this is a criminal conspiracy.

And I'm not saying that from the standpoint of conspiracy theory. I'm saying that from the definition of what it means to be a criminal conspiracy.

And so if you ask the question, which is a legitimate thing to do, was the FDA, was the CDC following orders from the who? The answer is, asterisks almost.

But who were they really following orders from? And that's where you get into the nasty answer, which is the answer was that interlocking directorate, that violation of antitrust laws, that corporate machine, not health, not, you know, we're out for the good of humanity.

That corporate criminal conspiratorial organization that was guilty at the time of racketeering, was guilty at the time of interlocking directorates, all felonies, was guilty at the time of price fixing, another felony, which was guilty at the time of actually suppressing commercial alternatives,

which is called market allocation, another felony. That criminal organization announced that it was going to take over the world, and they did.

But we have to name the names. It wasn't just the World Health Organization. Anybody thinks that Tadrus is smart enough to pull this off? He's delusional. He's a puppet.

And there's a giant stick up his ass, which is what's making his mouth move. But who's moving the stick for the puppet? And that is, welcome Gates and Rockefeller.

By 2023, which is kind of where we are right now, Gates represents 88% of the donation to the World Health Organization from donor organizations and agencies.

By any definition, that's a controlling interest. So is it independent? No.

Is it the World Health Organization nonprofit in Switzerland? No. This even violates Swiss law. Everything I'm saying is a violation of Swiss law.

If we think about how bizarre it is that we have the, essentially the extension of the Carnegie Foundation's eugenics office, which they put at Cold Spring Harbor Labs back in the early 1900s,

the continuation of that with the explicit inclusion of that as an agenda in the 1950s when the World Health Organization gets off the ground.

The ongoing nature of Bill Gates getting up and talking about how there's too many people on the earth and Bloomberg and others getting up and saying we need to figure out how to control populations.

In 2011, when we had the decade of the vaccines publication come out of the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, we had a very explicit statement that said that if we have vaccinations where we need them,

we will actually see potentially as much as a 20% reduction in the population on earth.

Those are not allegations. Those are stated objectives. But if we go and look and examine what's underneath that, what you'll see is that everything points back to a date in history that people don't actually understand well at all.

And that is 1944.

1944 at the Bretton Woods Conference, which in and of itself is an anomaly, but I want to put a pin in it because it's the biggest piece of hope that we have on earth.

So let's put a pin in this and come back to it.

When we actually saw the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, what we saw was a group of then allies who got together before the end of the Second World War and came up with this program.

And the program was we're going to assume that we win the war, which by the time 1944 wasn't a foregone conclusion.

We didn't know we were going to win the war in 1944 and the allies certainly had every reason to believe that maybe it wouldn't go their way. But the agreement was if we win, then we're going to create this multilateral agency program, which is what?

The establishment of the International Monetary Fund, the establishment of what became the World Bank, the establishment of what was the League of Nations, which became the United Nations, the establishment of all of these multilateral agencies,

and with no public oversight whatsoever. And this is so critical to understand. They got to write laws for themselves.

Not kind of like diplomatic immunity laws, like full immunity from every crime that they would ever do laws.

And if you go back and you read the charter, you sit back and kind of sit a little bit in awe. Nobody at any point in time raised their hand going, under what authority does a group of 120 people on earth have to just make their own laws and then have them stick?

Like, think about how ridiculous that is. But then also think about why isn't that we're not doing the same thing? Why don't we have a Bretton Woods of responsible humans?

Why don't we actually do what that same group did? Why don't we have the audacity of sitting down and going, well, what's the precedent?

I don't know, the World Bank, the IMF, the World Trade Organization, the United Nations. Why don't we actually do it? It never was authorized.

There was never permission granted to absolve yourself of criminal liability. They just gave it to themselves.

And I would encourage people who are actually listening and thinking about this particular conversation, go back and read the final presentation of Morgan Thow at Bretton Woods.

Because if you go back and read it, you'll go, that's just a dude. He wasn't elected. He didn't have any legislative or judicial or executive authority.

He just was a dude and he just said, I'm going to take over the world. And we let him take over the world.

Then as now, it was actually the Rockefeller Foundation and the Wellcome Trust. And at the time, those were the two biggest check-writers.

And then after that, we had a bunch of other multilateral donors, but the big ones, I mean, Ford was very involved.

Other big corporations were very involved at the time, but it was just company-sponsored.

So we could actually have Elon Musk go, hey, guess what, Bretton Woods 2.0, let's do it.

And it would be that ludicrous.

Klaus Schwab is the same thing. Most people don't remember that the World Economic Forum almost went bankrupt.

And but for some economic support, largely provided by a guy in Melbourne, Australia, which has an interesting link to the draconian lockdown in Victoria in Australia,

and the horse-trampeling of people and the people getting dragged out of their homes for their Facebook posts and everything else,

that Melbourne, that Victoria, the guy who actually kept Klaus Schwab alive when WEF was almost going out of business was an Australian.

Very few people actually know that. But we should. And we should talk about that.

We should talk about why WEF was allowed to continue to exist at the time when Klaus Schwab had steered it right into the iceberg.

And then we should ask, well, why was it kept alive? And what is it really? Not unlike the Gates Foundation.

There's a story behind the story.

WEF is a marketing arm of stupidity to see how many things you can say, like a Yuval Harari, saying that we don't need to have reproduction after 2030.

And what happens is that they say ridiculous things, and then people get whipped up into a frenzy over, we're going to have 15-minute cities,

we're going to have digital currency, we're going to have this, we're going to have that, we're going to have something else.

And nobody stops and says, hold on a minute, why don't we just not let his voice be heard? Because we could.

If we say, no airtime to Yuval, in fact, hashtag silence Yuval. Hashtag silence Klaus, right? Where's that?

What if we actually just didn't let their message go anywhere?

Well, they would actually collapse on the ground in a heap as the very evidentiary hollow beings that they are.

And their minions, which work within their organizations, would all go, you know what, Davos really isn't fun anymore, and they'd stop going.

We're the problem. And if we took their voice away, they would have no voice.

And this is the part that gets really uncomfortable because too many people tell me, oh, but they're all powerful.

No, you're giving them power. It is easy for me to listen to Yuval Harari and not share the stupidity of a sociopath.

It's easy to do that, just like I would have no problem not sharing something Bill Gates said.

Just like I have no problem not sharing something as stupid as anything that comes out of the mouth of Joe Biden.

I don't have a need to share it. And I think we'd do ourselves a great favor if we backed off of our promulgation of their message.

And just said, why don't we actually, I don't know, share messages that maybe are encouraging of humanity, maybe are positive, maybe are calls to action,

maybe are things that you can do something about rather than going, look how dark the darkness is getting.

If we actually keep those conversations going, guess who wins? The darkness. We're the problem.

Because if we are being pumped through the mainstream media, a story that says it's the border wall today, it's the target store closing in Philadelphia tomorrow,

every time we jump for another one of these nonsensical cover stories, we are actually ignoring the fact that this is organized crime.

And we need to start being the solution. We need to start having conversations about the fact that humans taking a stand and rising up and saying no.

And remember, within the last two months, one of the largest healthcare consortiums in California reinstated the mask mandate.

And you know what happened? It lasted 48 hours because the employees said no. 40,000 people said no.

And suddenly the mask mandate was rescinded. We should be talking about that story.

And they were woke healthcare providers who go, nah, I'm not playing the game this time.

There's two answers to when are we going to get justice? The first answer is, I think, noncompliance, because ultimately there will be cases where people are actually held to some sort of judicial review.

We, by the way, saw this already in several states where doctors who lost their licenses because they advocated for certain treatments are now having the medical boards having to eat crow.

And they're now getting their licenses reinstated. And those doctors, I applaud because they stayed true to themselves and they said, I'm not going to fall for it.

And they suffered and they are now getting certain restitution.

The cool thing is those cases are an indicative element of where the future might go because at some point in time there will be a discovery in which somebody is accused of a thing,

making a false statement, criticizing a certain organization, and there will be a libel charger, there will be something, and inside of it there's going to be discovery.

And most people don't understand how the law works, but what we need is we need a couple cases that actually are going to feel very uncomfortable in the moment.

But when an allegation is made that you said something that was false, guess what? They have to prove it was true. You don't.

And it would be really, really fun right now to actually have a few of those cases where you get to depose Anthony Fauci, you get to get access to unredacted emails,

you get access to what civil procedure gives you, and before long what you get is the evidence of the crime.

What we did in Utah is actually a groundbreaking story and the story isn't over.

It feels over to the casual observer, but it is not over. We allegedly lost the case.

And technically anybody reviewing the federal case will say it was dismissed under the grounds of rightness because our plaintiff,

Devin Griner, who was an amazingly courageous physician in Utah who actually took the first federal case, he put himself up there, first guy to paint the target on his back.

The court held that since he was not fired, he was threatened to be fired, but he was not fired for not getting the jab, because he did not actually have the firing happen.

The court case couldn't move forward. Now, we argued that the threat of firing was coercion, but the judge said no, he needed to be fired to have the standing to bring the case.

That's true, and we lost, but we didn't, because it turns out that in the state of Utah, there's a law that says that there's a thing called the illegal practice of medicine,

which is actually to make medical recommendations and to give medical guidance as an entity that is not licensed to practice medicine in the state.

That is a class three felony, and in the state of Utah, as a class three felony, that practicing of medicine without a license is not limited to doctors who are actually practicing in Utah,

and the federal government in its own defense in our federal case admitted to the practice of medicine in Utah without a license.

Under the state statute in Utah, it says the Attorney General shall prosecute that class three felony, not may, shall.

It doesn't give the Attorney General any discretion. The law says that crime has to be prosecuted.

Now, Sean Ray's current Attorney General in Utah has, because of his moral and ethical compromise, been unwilling to take that case.

That's fine, but guess what? He won't be Attorney General forever, and that crime doesn't go away, and we have, because of the case we filed, a felony case against the U.S. government for the illegal practice of medicine in the state of Utah.

Now, how would they defend themselves? Well, they'd have to actually produce evidence that they somehow had the basis for making the recommendations they did.

They would have to have the evidence that they actually had legitimate data backing up the support for it, because all of that is required under the statute, and none of that exists.

So the crime's already there, and the prosecution pathway is already there, and those are going to be the cases where we have to take a step back and realize, and I like to use historical metaphors.

1774 is when we started the revolution, and we didn't finish the fight the first time around until the 1780s, and we didn't really finish conflict until the Treaty of Ghent after the War of 1812.

So let's just do the little math on where we are versus where independence was. 1774 to 1815.

Last time I checked, that's a generation that took us to just declare independence.

We're three years into this fight. We're not 30 years into it yet.

So the way I look at it, we're on track. We're on track. We actually have some wins on the board, and we have some contingency wins on the board, and I'm super excited about the fact that we're ahead of the founding fathers of this country.

My ability to conduct my life should be an absolute authority at liberty, provided that the exercise of my liberty does not impair yours.

Because for a functional society to work, we have to have absolute liberty within the boundaries of not impairing someone else's ability to access the same thing.

That's what community is, and that's the definition of liberty that Thomas Jefferson espoused.

That's the definition of liberty that goes back to the Code of Hammurabi.

That's the definition of liberty that goes back to the Syrupedia, and that's what we should be talking about as truth.

Because then what does that imply? That implies not only do I have a self-respect to honor my essence, but I also have an obligation to understand yours.

To make sure that my exercise of liberty doesn't impinge on yours and vice versa.

That means we have to talk. We have to communicate. We have to engage in respectful dialogue. We have to do a number of things, and that is a truth that is missing from all of our conversations.

And that's the truth we have to access.

So the answer is really simple. You can't take from me what I don't have. Have I risked anything? No.

I've actually done the best I can with what I have.

I don't have a lot of resources, so I can't buy advertisements and I can't do a bunch of other things.

My message has landed in every country on earth. I haven't had to pay to push that out.

I've lived a life so far beyond my wildest expectations and dreams.

I've had experiences that I could not have imagined times a thousand.

Because the fact is that I have lived fully.

I've done everything I can to the best of my abilities. I'm going to go ring every drop out of this rag.

Freakin' let nothing remain, because I want to know that I was fully spent on the day that I'm done.